{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-02-25", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - DRAFT\nFebruary 25, 2009\nActing Chair Krueger called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:37 p.m.\n1.\nROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.\nMembers Present:\nJohn Knox White\nMichael Krueger\nRobert McFarland\nSrikant Subramaniam\nMembers Absent:\nJane Lee\nKathy Moehring (arrived at 7:40 p.m.)\nEric Schatmeier\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\na.\nDecember 10, 2008\nStaff Bergman noted that due to lack of a quorum, the December 10, 2008, minutes would be\npresented at the next meeting.\nb.\nJanuary 28, 2009\nCommissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the January 28, 2009, meeting and\nminutes as presented. Commissioner McFarland seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nChair Knox White suggested that Item 7A be presented first because of the members of the\npublic in attendance. He suggested that the Draft AC Transit Line 51 item be heard next, and that\nthe Multimodal Thresholds of Significance be heard after that.\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nTransit Plan Subcommittee\nThere was no report.\nPage 1 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-02-25", "page": 2, "text": "Bicycle Plan Update Task Force\nChair Knox White noted that this group would meet the following week, and that there was\nnothing to report\nCommissioner Moehring arrived at 7:40 p.m.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS\nThere were none.\nCommissioner Lee and Commissioner Schatmeier arrived at approximately 7:45 p.m.\n7.\nNEW BUSINESS\n7A.\nRequest of Relocation of the Bus Stop at Santa Clara Avenue and Chestnut Street.\nStaff Bergman presented the staff report, and detailed the background and scope of this item. The\nrequest to relocate the bus stop was made due to concerns by church representatives that diesel\nfumes from the buses caused to the church building and the stained glass windows, and that the\ndamage if left unabated would undermine the extensive renovation that the church had\nundergone recently. The church is listed on the National Historic Register. The church also\nclaimed there was damage to the landscaping and the front stairs by bus riders who waited on the\nproperty, and that the bus riders left trash on the church property. AC Transit and the City\ngenerally prefer to keep bus stops in pairs for ease of use by the riders, and staff suggested that if\nit was determined that the stop should be relocated, that both stops should be moved to other\nlocations.\nStaff Bergman noted that the first choice was to keep the stop at the same intersection, but to\nmove it to a different location. The presence of driveways made the location across the street\nunsuitable. The only other feasible location that would comply with the bus stop spacing\nguidelines supported by the City and AC Transit would be to relocate it to the intersection of\nLafayette Street and Santa Clara Avenue, one block away. He noted that staff considered several\nfactors in evaluating whether to recommend the relocation. In addition to the spacing guidelines,\nthey looked at the physical conditions at the two locations, the land uses near the two sites, the\npresence of stop signs and crosswalks, input from the community and stakeholders, as well as the\nusage of the current bus stop and the number of pedestrians and bicyclists using the intersection.\nStaff Bergman noted that staff contacted AC Transit regarding the impact of the emissions on the\nchurch, and were told that since 2002, AC Transit has undergone an extensive upgrade of their\nbuses, resulting in a 97 percent reduction in the buses' particulate emissions. The tailpipes of the\nbuses also pointed away from the building, and that the impact would not be that significant.\nStaff Bergman noted that determining the impact of emissions is a very complex process, but\nPage 2 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-02-25", "page": 3, "text": "given the absence of more detailed information from AC Transit, staff used the information\navailable. He displayed the location of the bus stop on the overhead screen. He noted that in\ncomparing the spacing between bus stops at the two alternative locations, they were essentially\nequivalent with respect to the guidelines.\nStaff Bergman noted that several items were in place to assist pedestrians with crossing at the\nintersection of Santa Clara and Chestnut, including all-way stop signs, a yellow school\ncrosswalk, a crossing guard, and yield to pedestrian signs. At the Lafayette intersection, there\nwere stop controls for Lafayette Street approaching Santa Clara, but the traffic at Santa Clara was\nnot controlled, and marked crosswalks were not present.\nStaff Bergman noted that with respect to the adjacent land uses, the westbound stop was directly\nin front of the church; the eastbound stop was in front of the parking lot and a school associated\nwith the Immanuel Lutheran Church across the street. The alternative location at Lafayette Street\nwas for the eastbound stop near a residential building; the stop for the westbound direction\nwould be near the grass strip in front of a residence. He noted that the existing location was a\nschool crosswalk, and lined up with several other traffic controls along intersections on Chestnut\nStreet. He noted that there were several schools, including St. Joseph's, nearby and that it\nconnected as a pedestrian corridor.\nStaff Bergman noted that with respect to bus stop usage, the existing bus stops at Santa Clara and\nChestnut were among the most heavily used stops in the City. He noted that the two bus stops\ncombined were used by an average of 419 passengers per day. He noted that AC Transit\nindicated that they opposed the relocation of the stop because of the pedestrian amenities at the\nexisting stop, and the lack of a crosswalk at the Lafayette intersection. In addition to the request\nfrom the church, staff contacted Haight Elementary School, and there were three child care\nfacilities within a block of the location. The principal of the elementary school, as well as several\nteachers, indicated that they supported relocating the stop and expressed concern about having\nstudents crossing at the same location where the bus stop was located. A similar comment was\nreceived from one of the child care centers. A comment was received from the Alameda Korean\nPresbyterian Church supporting the stop at its current location.\nStaff agreed with some of the concerns expressed by AC Transit regarding the appropriateness of\nthe bus stop, and supported maintaining it at its current location, primarily because of the stop\ncontrols at the intersection SO that the buses are required to stop, whether or not there were\npassengers at the stop. Staff Bergman noted that the City was interested in working with the\nchurch to minimize the impact of the bus riders on the stop. He noted that upgraded benches\nwere on order by the City, and were expected to come in soon. Both stops were on the priority\nlist for shelters that were approved by the City Council, based on ridership levels. The City has\ncontacted the Alameda Police Department regarding the potential to conduct patrols or other\nappropriate safety measures. The City preferred to maintain the stop at the existing location, and\nfor City staff to work with the church to mitigate any negative impacts of the bus stop.\nPage 3 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-02-25", "page": 4, "text": "Commissioner Schatmeier inquired whether this stop had ever been located anywhere else. Staff\nBergman replied that he was not aware of any other location.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether pedestrian activity was part of the criteria for a stop\nsign warrant. Staff Bergman replied that it was one of the factors.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether the pedestrian activity attributable to the bus were to be\nadded to the totals for Lafayette and Chestnut would put it over the warrant threshold. Staff\nBergman replied that it would not.\nCommissioner Lee inquired whether police had been involved with other bus stops that may have\nhad issues. Staff Bergman replied that he was not aware of anything.\nStaff Khan noted that Public Works worked very closely with the Alameda Police Department in\nthese issues, and if staff anticipated any vandalism or other security concerns, the police\ndepartment would send more officers and keep an eye on the area.\nCommissioner Lee inquired whether there had been any specific occurrences that required police\nintervention. Staff Khan replied that he was not aware of any instances other than traffic-related\nissues.\nCommissioner Lee inquired whether the number of pedestrian crossings was a factor in\ndetermining the location of the bus stop. Staff Bergman replied that was one of the factors that\ninfluenced the bus stop's location.\nChair Knox White complimented staff on the quality of the report and photos. He inquired\nwhether the City was able to bill appellants for staff's time. Staff Khan replied that staff had\nreceived City Council's approval for charging a fee if a request was non-safety related, but that\nthis analysis began before the policy was in place.\nOpen public hearing.\nMark Cunningham noted that the initial intent was to see what could be done to minimize the\ndamage to this National Register historic church, and that one option was moving the bus stop.\nThey had also requested a shelter and a more clearly marked area for the riders to sit, which\nwould relieve the wear and tear on the steps. After hearing staff's report, he understood that\nmoving the bus stop may not be the best idea, and he requested a covered bus stop with seating.\nHe noted that the decrease in the diesel emissions was a good piece of information.\nNancy Hird, President, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS), noted that this\nbuilding was on the National Registry of Historic Places, and that the AAPS supported the\npreservation of any older building. AAPS met in the Presbyterian Church for the general\nmeetings, and she relayed a story about several boys waiting for the bus that night, bouncing a\nbasketball against the church building.\nPage 4 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-02-25", "page": 5, "text": "Phil Sandri noted that he was a daily bus rider who used this bus stop, and complimented staff\non the quality of the staff report. He believed the proposed move to Lafayette Street would be a\nvery poor decision from a safety standpoint, and that the Chestnut Street location was key. He\nnoted that the sight lines on Lafayette and Santa Clara were very poor, which he believed would\ncompromise pedestrian safety.\nJean DuPuis appreciated the work that went into the staff report and analysis, as well as the\nconcern for the preservation of the church buildings in Alameda. She believed that relocating the\nbus stops to the Lafayette intersection would relocate the nuisances experienced at the church\nsite to another historic building, and would like the effects to be mitigated at the original site.\nJim Rankin noted that this was a difficult issue for the City, and that St. Joseph's lets a lot of\nstudents out that go down to Chestnut. He noted that if the stops were relocated to the Lafayette\nintersection, the noise would make it difficult for nearby residents to sleep.\nMargaret Harris, Principal, Henry Haight Elementary School, noted that with respect to the\nviews of others, separating the school crosswalk from the bus stop would help eliminate the blind\nspot for pedestrians and the crossing guard. She believed it would improve safety when the\ncrossing guards were not available, and that it would help eliminate the drop-off and school\ntraffic blockage that occurs when the bus stops. She had seen scary maneuvers by the parents and\nstudent pedestrians right before the morning bell rang. She also noted that if the stop were\nrelocated that students would not have to walk amongst adult strangers waiting for the bus.\nRev. Jack Buckley, pastor, First Presbyterian Church, noted that he had observed an evolution of\nthe crosswalk and bus stop arrangement over the past 15 years. He believed they may have been\nenhanced following some accidents, and became four-way stops, with further enhanced painting\nand signage. He noted that the church leaves the porch light on until 10 p.m. for the benefit of the\nriders, and he enjoys talking with riders when he is outside the front door. He noted that the\nchurch likes to be a good neighbor. He would like to protect the church as much as possible, and\nmove the stop a block away. He did not want to pass their problems on to their neighbors, and\nwould be willing to live with the decision of the Transportation Commission. He wants the best\nfor the church, the building and their neighbors.\nStephen Richardson noted that he concurred with the staff report, and did not want the burden to\nbe shifted to the neighbors or the nearby historic building. He understood the church's concerns,\nbut did not want to have the diesel fumes near his home. He supported the staff recommendation.\nMelissa Murphy noted that she lives right next to the proposed relocated bus stop, and that her\nbedroom was right above the bus stop. She noted that while she appreciated the concern around\nhistoric buildings, she was more concerned about her health.\nGeorge Correa spoke in opposition to the relocation of the bus stop, and was concerned that the\n40-foot-long bus would impact one of the large trees on the corner of Lafayette and Santa Clara.\nHe was concerned the tree would have to be cut down, at a cost of nearly $5,000. He added that\nPage 5 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-02-25", "page": 6, "text": "articulated buses would not be able to use this stop. He added that staff checked the property at\n1835 Santa Clara, where the proposed stop would be located, and added that there was a garage\ndoor that had been grown over with trees. If the garage were ever to be cleared and used, the bus\nstop would impact that driveway.\nClose public comment.\nCommissioner Schatmeier complimented staff on the thoroughness of its analysis. He noted that\na shelter at this location would be a positive addition.\nCommissioner Moehring noted that she was married in this church, and loved it. She inquired of\nRev. Buckley how he felt about benches and a shelter at the original location. She believed that\nsome thought should be put into the design of a shelter to enhance the beauty of this church.\nRev. Buckley believed that a shelter would be an improvement over the original bench that was\nopen to the air. He noted that it would not provide any shelter to people on a rainy day. He had\nseen several shelter designs around Alameda, and believed that a shelter that was glass-enclosed\nand the ability to seat more than three people would be appropriate. He would not like\nadvertising to be placed on the shelter.\nCommissioner Lee appreciated the previous comments, and would like Principal Harris'\nconcerns to be addressed. She understood the safety concerns.\nStaff Khan noted that staff examined the operational aspects of this intersection, such as signage\nand signals. He noted that a stop sign at a crosswalk created a better situation for pedestrians.\nChair Knox White thanked Mr. Cunningham and Pastor Buckley for their comments and\ncooperative participation. He noted that this stop was one of 18 in the City that was identified by\nthe City Council as a priority location for a bus shelter. Regarding the school concerns, he was\nnot aware of the buses being involved in collisions with pedestrians. He was aware of dangerous\nmaneuvers by parents dropping children off at this and other school locations. He would like to\nsee an educational effort aimed towards parent drivers to take more care around pedestrians.\nCommissioner Krueger moved to approve the recommendations in the staff report, with a\nrecommendation for immediate placement of a bench and a trash can at the northbound and\nsouthbound stops, and a high priority for installation of a shelter compatible with the architecture of\nthe church at the northbound stop. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed\n7-0.\n7B.\nReview of the Draft AC Transit Line 51 Service and Reliability Report\nStaff Bergman summarized the staff report, and detailed the background of this item. He\ndescribed the extensive work performed by AC Transit on this ongoing review. He noted that\nextensive bunching of buses had been reported, and AC Transit examined the issue thoroughly.\nStaff needed to see more information regarding the causes of those delays. He noted that\nPage 6 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-02-25", "page": 7, "text": "relatively few recommendations affected Alameda, and that many of the difficulties affected the\nportions of the line in Oakland and Berkeley. The options for service modifications were a major\npart of the report, including the possibility of splitting the route into two different routes;\npossibly having a limited and local service; or the creation of alternating A and B stops.\nCory Lavigne, District Service and Operations Planning Manager, noted that the report contained\na robust public outreach process. He noted that they would like the input of the Transportation\nCommission before commencing the public outreach process. He introduced Puja Sarna and\nSean Diest Lorgion from his office, who wrote the document.\nPuja Sarna noted that this route was the source of most of the complaints received by AC\nTransit.\nSean Diest Lorgion presented a PowerPoint presentation on the overhead screen, and described\nthe route. He noted that Line 51 was one of AC Transit's most important routes, and the most\nheavily used, with close to 20,000 daily riders, almost 8% of the total district ridership. The\nservice operated virtually around-the-clock, covering 13 miles, with service every 8 minutes\nduring peak hours, every 10 minutes during the midday, and every 20 minutes during the\nevenings. There were roughly 80 stops per direction, providing great accessibility for the\npassengers. He noted that it generally operated at 9 mph in the PM peak hours, at a daily average\nof 12 mph; some segments were 6-8 mph. He noted that there was large variability in running\ntimes, and that the buses frequently bunched up. He noted that the goals of the task force were\nincrease travel time of the route, improve service reliability, increase passenger comfort, while\nretaining riders. He noted that they conducted point checks to calculate running time along the\nroute, and that the variability in running times made it difficult to write a schedule for Line 51.\nPuja Sarna noted that with respect to route-wide improvements, AC Transit recommended\nhaving signal coordination along major corridors where it didn't already exist. They also\nsuggested moving bus stops to the far side of signalized intersections so the bus would not catch\ntwo signal cycles. They recommended queue jump lanes, so the bus could bypass traffic queued\nup at a traffic signal, at locations such as the Tube entrance. They recommended having\nprotected left-turn phases, such as where the 51 turned left from Webster onto Santa Clara. They\nalso looked at stop removals and stop spacing issues. They recommended maintaining the\nappropriate parking restrictions at bus stops to allow the bus to enter and exit the bus stop, and to\nallow easy boarding and alighting from the bus. They recommended keeping bus stops clear of\nobstructions, such as garbage cans and newspaper racks that should be placed in appropriate\nplaces. Passengers will be encouraged to move toward the end of the bus and alight from the\nback door. They recommended using a prepayment program at three to five major bus stops to\nstreamline boarding.\nMs. Sarna noted that with respect to reliability, one option was to have a dwell point in the\nmiddle of the route so the bus can reset a schedule without irritating the passengers. She noted\nthat another option to reduce running time was to implement a \"limited\" service, which would\nstop approximately every three bus stops; this would replace a portion of the local service. She\nnoted that the A/B option was two buses that would stop at alternating stops, although both\nwould stop at major stop locations. She noted that the A/B option had the drawback of making\nPage 7 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-02-25", "page": 8, "text": "everybody wait longer for the bus. She noted that the report was a draft, and that AC Transit\nanticipated receiving more comments. She noted that they would also conduct a rider survey,\nwhich they would also distribute to transit advocates. A cost-benefit analysis would be conducted\nonce the recommendations were refined.\nOpen public hearing.\nThere were no speakers.\nClose public hearing.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that he rode the 51 regularly, and always wondered what happened\nat the end of the line with respect to recovery time.\nMr. Diest Lorgion noted that the delays in the run could stem from delays due to factors such as\nadditional time it takes bicyclists and wheelchair passengers to board, and the need for the\noperator to use the rest room.\nMs. Sarna noted that the operators' contracts state that they are permitted to take a break at the\nend of the line, even if they were behind schedule. She noted that there had been some\nimprovement in management of break times.\nMr. Lavigne noted that this was an 86-minute route, and that the break times were designed so\nthe operators felt comfortable taking a needed break.\nChair Knox White inquired whether additional recovery time had been proposed to keep the line\non schedule.\nMr. Lavigne noted that was an option if they wanted to add recovery time within the route or at\nthe end of the line; the resource expenditures would be the same. He noted that the addition of\ntime or resources would help the situation.\nCommissioner Schatmeier inquired about the distinction between signal priority and signal\ncoordination. Ms. Sarna noted that signal coordination was what they advocated for, which\noccurred when a series of signals were hard-wired together to allow cars to pass through the light\ncontinuously. Signal priority was a different type of technology that allowed the emitter on the\nbus to hold the green light for a longer time, usually 10% of the signal length, to allow the bus to\ntravel through.\nStaff Khan noted that signal priority and signal coordination went hand in hand. A new signal\nwould be installed at Pacific and Webster, in conjunction with coordination along the whole\ncorridor.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that page 17 of the report indicated that drivers are instructed\n\"not to pass the leader bus, even to reduce buses operating ahead of schedule, and the buses will\ncontinue to be off-schedule until they can reset at the end of the route.\" He noted that he has been\nPage 8 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-02-25", "page": 9, "text": "a daily transit user for most of his life, and had seen drivers on other transit services bargaining\nwith one another regarding who would pull ahead and pick up passengers. He inquired about the\nreason for AC Transit's policy.\nMr. Diest Lorgion noted that was called \"bump and run\" where drivers would pass each other to\nhelp out. At one time, such strategies were used, but it was determined that some drivers were\nabusing this, and it was decided not to permit this.\nOpen public hearing.\nAdrienne Longley-Cook expressed concern proposals to have people exit at the rear doors to the\nbus. She noted that seniors and people with mobility problems felt more comfortable exiting at\nthe front of the bus. She believed that a speed increase was a problem for people with disabilities\nstanding on the bus, and that she almost went through the window of the bus at one time. She\nnoted that a member of the Commission on Disability Issues mentioned that drivers had passed\nher up because her daughter is in a wheelchair.\nClose public hearing.\nChair Knox White thanked staff for the addendum, and noted that 2,800 people on the route\n(almost 40% of the ridership) got off in Alameda. He inquired whether the alightings could be\nadded to capture a more accurate picture of the route.\nCommissioner Moehring expressed concern about the removal of the two stops in Alameda,\nwhich did not contribute to the slowdown of the system very much. She noted that the City was\ntrying to encourage people to take public transportation, and she did not believe that was a\nhelpful change. She noted that Alameda really was not a major part of the problem.\nMr. Diest Lorgion understood Commissioner Moehring' concern, and noted that every stop\nremoval did save time as a whole. He noted that they were conscious of equity among the\nparticipating cities.\nChair Knox White believed that reliability was the major factor that helped riders once they've\ngotten on the bus. He supported both removals, and that the removal of the stop at Santa Clara\nand 9th should be discussed because of ridership.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that as a bus rider, he believed the Line 51 balance was skewed,\nand should be moved towards speeding up the bus and making it more reliable, even if that came\nat the expense of a slightly longer walk.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that this was the best performing route in the system, and that it\nwas high-frequency, served many different generators, and that it was important to preserve the\npositive aspects of the route. He did not want the appeal of the route to riders to be lost while\nmaking operational improvements, and that there were often tradeoffs in those performance\ndecisions.\nPage 9 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-02-25", "page": 10, "text": "Commissioner Lee expressed concern about splitting the routes, and that if it lost time, it may be\nmore or less convenient to change buses if it was reliable.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the process moving forward, Ms. Sarna\nreplied that public input was very important, and that workshops were being scheduled in each of\nthe three cities where the 51 operated - Alameda, Berkeley, and Oakland.\nChair Knox White noted that he would like an opportunity to discuss this item in more detail\nbefore moving forward. He noted that the least ridden section of the line had the most delays. He\ndid not believe it would be appropriate to identify drivers as the sole sources of the delays, but\ndid not believe it would be appropriate to soft-pedal the issues on this line. He supported\nremoving the stop at Lincoln, and believed there should be a discussion of whether 9th Street\nmakes sense when examining the number of daily riders. He believed the decisions should be\nbased on whether meaningful time would be saved.\nChair Knox White believed the origin/destination study was key, and should be done before there\nwas a discussion of what to do next. He noted that many people he knew who traveled to\nBerkeley did not take the 51 all the way; he observed many people riding to 12th and Broadway,\nwhere they continued via BART. He noted that he had never seen a bus stop before entering an\nintersection in order to wait for the bus ahead of it to clear the bus stop, and suggested that be re-\nemphasized in the drivers' training. It was his personal experience that the delays on Broadway\nbetween 8th and 11th were due to double parking.\nMr. Diest Lorgion noted that they would consider looking at the larger articulated buses if the\nline was split.\nChair Knox White did not favor the A/B split service, and did not believe that would serve riders\nvery well. He believed that driver training and management was very important, and cited the\nexample of New York City buses.\nNo action was taken.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved to extend the meeting until 10:30. Commissioner Krueger\nseconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0.\nCommissioner McFarland and Commissioner Subramaniam left the meeting at 10:10 p.m.\n6.\nOLD BUSINESS\n6A. Preliminary Proposed Thresholds of Significance and Implementation Policies\nStaff Khan presented the staff report, and explained the meaning of the thresholds of\nsignificance. Staff would like Dowling to return and provide more information about the\nanalysis. He noted that the issue raised at the last meeting addressed the degradation associated\nfrom the tradeoffs resulting from conflict between two modes, impacting the second mode. He\nPage 10 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-02-25", "page": 11, "text": "noted that if the thresholds were to be locked, the tradeoff would be possible. He noted that the\nCalifornia Vehicle Code provided considerable leeway for the community to provide feedback if\na crosswalk is proposed to be removed. The Vehicle Code requires the local jurisdiction to hold a\npublic hearing; one was recently held regarding the removal of a school crosswalk near\nWoodstock School, which has closed.\nStaff Khan noted that with respect to conflict between thresholds, a major comment received\nfrom the Commission addressed the public safety issue. Public safety is usually addressed\nimplicitly in the Thresholds. He discussed the flow of traffic along long segments without\nreaching LOS F. He noted that Dowling was testing this, and would provide a report on the\nresults. He noted that at the last meeting, it was requested that pedestrians and bicycles be given\npreference over transit. After talking with AC Transit and looking at the issues in the field, staff\nbelieved that transit should be given the priority because it would ultimately yield better\nconditions for pedestrians and bicyclists.\nChair Knox White believed that the City should be very clear about what's happening with\nrespect to disclosure, and that it was difficult to understand the procedures for resolving conflicts\nbetween preferred modes as presented in the staff report. He asked to see the policies used by\nstaff to develop the procedures.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that he also had trouble with the information presented in the staff\nreport. He inquired whether an algorithm was used to come up with this list.\nStaff Khan noted that the list of streets was based on a Citywide model that stated that certain\nintersections would go to D or E, and that pedestrians, bikes and transit had the priority on those\nstreets. Staff looked at the conflicts that would potentially occur in the future and also based its\nrecommendations on the input from the Commission that the Street Functional Classification\nSystem should be followed.\nChair Knox White asked for a sense of the Commission, and asked whether the Commission\nunderstood this well enough to discuss it in March.\nStaff Khan noted that with \"regional arterials with commercial, main or school recreational land\nuse designation, preference will be given to transit mode, followed by the pedestrian mode if the\ntransit LOS degraded below D.\"\nChair Knox White inquired how the priority was decided.\nStaff Khan noted that staff identified the places where transit was critical, and that maintaining a\ngood transit service was important.\nCommissioner Schatmeier believed that the need for this was created by automobiles. He\ncommented at the last meeting that there were transit vehicles that ran down transit malls with\n15-minute headways; when the trains go by, the pedestrians get out of the way until the next train\ncomes.\nPage 11 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-02-25", "page": 12, "text": "Open public hearing.\nNathan Landau of AC Transit noted that there was not an unmanageable conflict with anything\nbesides cars, unless the right of way becomes constricted. He noted that when there was one lane\nin each direction, a center turn and bike lanes, the bus would become very vulnerable to any\ndisruption in that single lane. He added that they would look for solutions that did not harm\neither side.\nClose public hearing.\nStaff Khan noted that developers would like to know what kind of impacts their projects might\ncreate when proposing a project in the city.\nChair Knox White would like this policy and the priorities to be spelled out in a clear, simple\nmanner.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that LOS for transit has not yet been defined, and was glad that\nstaff will continue to look into it.\nNo action was taken.\n8.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nEstuary Crossing/Feasibility Study\nStaff Khan noted that staff planned to release this study next month, and will be brought to the\nTransportation Commission in March.\nBroadway/Jackson Update\nStaff Khan noted that there was nothing new to report.\nUpcoming development-related traffic studies and plans\nStaff Khan understood that Boatworks Development was moving forward, and were in the EIR\nprocess. Staff would bring information to the Transportation Commission as it becomes\navailable.\nStaff Khan noted that staff was deeply involved in the I-880 and 23rd/29th interchanges. CMA\nwas moving forward with the proposal to eliminate northbound access on 23rd Avenue. He\ndescribed the proposed redirection of traffic. Staff was concerned about a proposed new signal\nbefore the ramp meter, which would create more delays for traffic leaving Alameda.\nChair Knox White inquired why that extra signal would be installed. Staff Khan replied that they\nwanted to combine the two ramps from Oakland and Alameda into one ramp, which was\nCaltrans' preference.\n9.\nADJOURNMENT: 11:02 p.m.\nPage 12 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf"}